Preservation panel approves plan to replace 2 Canal Street buildings

It's not often that people interested in New Orleans' urban landscape have reason to praise businessman Kishore "Mike" Motwani. In fact, it may never have happened before. For a quarter of a century, Motwani has been the man whom preservationists, city regulators and even economic development gurus love to hate. They have objected to the spread of his T-shirt shop empire throughout the French Quarter, his repeated flouting of government regulations, his failure to maintain some of his buildings and his gobbling up of Canal Street properties to open cut-rate stores that impede efforts to upgrade Canal as a shopping destination.

John McCusker, The Times-PicayuneThe Central Business District panel of the Historic District Landmarks Commission last week gave conceptual approval to the proposed demolition of these two buildings in the upriver side of the 400 block of Canal Street.

But his proposal to tear down two of his least lovely Canal Street buildings and erect a new building in their place drew praise at a meeting last week of the Central Business District panel of the Historic District Landmarks Commission.

Oddly, though, Motwani's name was never mentioned. Throughout a lengthy discussion, he was referred to only as "this owner" or the like.

The buildings in question are two one-story structures on the upriver side of the 400 block of Canal. The larger building, at the corner of Tchoupitoulas Street, is a convenience store selling liquor and other products. The smaller building next door advertises that it sells tickets for Audubon Nature Institute attractions such as the nearby aquarium and insectarium.

Both buildings are dominated by large signs that appear to far exceed the size allowed by city regulations.

Through his architect, Donald Maginnis, Motwani has proposed to demolish the two one-story buildings and construct a new two-story, 3,700-square-foot commercial building with a gallery.

Aside from a minor detail or two, that proposal won the commission's favor, and it voted to give the project conceptual approval, although final designs still will have to be presented to the commission for its review.

"A vacant lot would be an improvement over what's there now," one commissioner said. However, it was fear that the site might in fact end up a vacant lot that gave the panel pause.

Motwani also owns an adjoining surface parking lot, and some commissioners expressed fear that if they authorized demolition of the current buildings, the new building might never get built and the vacant site would simply be added to the parking lot.

"I don't want to be duped into thinking we will get a new building and instead it sits vacant for 20 years," Commissioner John Boyd said.

Commissioners discussed making approval of the demolition request contingent on various possibilities, such as requiring a performance bond designed to make sure Motwani would pay a substantial penalty if construction does not begin within a given period.

Others suggested requiring that bollards be placed around the perimeter of the cleared property where the two buildings stand, designed to prevent vehicles from passing and thus to make it impossible for the site to be used for parking.

In the end, the commission deferred a decision on the demolition request for 30 days to allow time for its staff and the applicant to discuss what sort of measures to require.